Madras High Court
L.Suresh vs Unipress India Pvt Ltd on 21 November, 2025
WP.No.5713/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON 26.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON 21.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA
WP.No.5713/2021 & WMP.Nos.6329 & 6331/2021
L.Suresh
S/o.M.Loganathan
No.36, Rajiv Gandhi Street,
Aayakulathur Village, Thodukadu
Post, Sriperumbathur Taluk
Kanchipuram District 602 105. .. Petitioner
Versus
Unipress India Pvt Ltd.,
RNS-6, SIPCOT Industrial
Growth Centre, Oragadam
Vadakkuppattu [Post]
Sriperumbathur Taluk
Kanchipuram District 603 204. .. Respondent
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of
the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, in AP.No.41/2016
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
WP.No.5713/2021
pronounced on 19.03.2020, and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash
Senior counsel for
Mr.S.R.Bubalachandran
For Respondent : Mr.S.Saiprasad for
M/s.Sai Raaj Associates
ORDER
(1)The writ petition is filed to quash the order dated 19.03.2020 passed by
the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, in AP.No.41/2016,
granting approval of the dismissal order, passed by the respondent herein,
dismissing the petitioner from service.
(2)Facts in a nutshell:- The petitioner was appointed as Spot Welder
Trainee on 07.06.2010. The petitioner's services were confirmed with
effect from 01.10.2012. While so, the petitioner, as a General Secretary
of Unipress India Thozhilalar Sangam, raised a dispute regarding the
wage revision and the same was pending before the Labour Court,
Chennai, in ID.No.9/2016. While so, the petitioner, as a member of the
Canteen Committee, found that the food served to the employees on
29.06.2015, was inedible and so asked for alternate food. This conduct of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
the petitioner did not find favour with the respondent and therefore, on
29.06.2015, the respondent issued a false Charge Memo to the petitioner.
Based on the Charge Memo, enquiry proceedings were conducted and the
petitioner was dismissed from service on 20.05.2016. Thereafter, the
respondent filed an Approval Petition in AP.No.41/2016 before the
Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, for approval of the dismissal order. The
Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 19.03.2020, allowed the Approval
Petition. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner filed the above
writ petition for the aforesaid relief.
(3)The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
the impugned order suffers from serious error apparent on the face of the
record, inasmuch as the Presiding Officer, of the Industrial Tribunal,
Chennai, clubbed all issues, overlooking that he was bound to decide the
fairness of the enquiry separately as a preliminary issue. The learned
Senior counsel submitted that the entire enquiry proceedings were
vitiated since the very foundation of the enquiry, namely, the Charge
Memo, was vague and bereft of particulars. The learned Senior counsel
further submitted that the copy of the complaint, namely, Ex.M2, was not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
annexed with the Charge Memo and therefore, the petitioner was
deprived of an opportunity of submitting a proper reply to the Charge
Memo, which resulted in gross violation of principles of natural justice.
On the merits of the matter, the learned Senior counsel, submitted that the
findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse, since the Enquiry Officer
failed to consider the material evidence. For all the above said reasons,
the learned Senior counsel prayed for quashment of the impugned order
dated 19.03.2020.
(4)The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that
the petitioner did not raise any plea on the vagueness of the charges, but
participated in the disciplinary proceedings without any demur and
therefore, the said contention is only an after-thought. On the contention
of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that non-furnishing of the
complaint copy vitiated the enquiry proceedings, the learned counsel for
the respondent submitted that as the Show Cause Notice was a replica of
the complaint, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner. The learned
counsel further submitted that as per the Model Standing Orders, it was
not incumbent to enclose a copy of the complaint along with the Charge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
Memo/Show Cause Notice. The learned counsel submitted that in any
event, the author of the complaint was examined as MW1 in the enquiry
and the petitioner also had an opportunity to cross-examine him. On the
merits of the matter, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
the scope of enquiry in an Approval Petition was restricted to examining
whether a prima facie case was made out and not proof to the hilt. The
learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was not remedy less
as the petitioner was entitled to challenge the dismissal order in the 2A
dispute. The learned counsel therefore, submitted that the writ petition
lacked merits and deserved to be dismissed.
(5)Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
(6)A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Tribunal has not
framed the issues in accordance with the mandate laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalla Ram Vs. DCM Chemicals
Works Ltd and Another, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1004. Instead, the
Tribunal has adopted its own procedure, clubbed all the issues together
and passed a cryptic order granting approval to the dismissal order. The
failure of the Tribunal to frame appropriate issues and to render a finding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
on each of them is a clear violation of the jurisdictional parameters
governing the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the law governing
the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunals in proceedings under Section
33[2][b] of the Act. In Lalla Ram's case [cited supra], the Apex Court
held that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to examine
[1]whether a proper domestic enquiry in accordance with the relevant
rules/Standing Orders and principles of natural justice has been held ;
[2]whether a prima facie case for dismissal based on the legal evidence
adduced before the Tribunal, exists ; and [3]whether the order of
dismissal is bona fide and not vitiated by victimization or unfair labour
practice on condition that the employer pays one month wages to the
employee and within one month time, the employer should file the
petition for approval, has also been stipulated. In the present case, the
Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, has failed to frame proper
issues and has also failed to render specific findings on the validity of the
domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue and instead, clubbed all issues
together and granted approval. Moreover, the learned tribunal failed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
give a finding on the statutory mandate of filing the application
simultaneously or within such reasonable time as to form a part of the
same transaction. This Court finds that the procedure adopted by the
Tribunal is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the aforesaid judgment.
(7)It is further pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in John
D'Souza Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation reported in
2019 IV LLJ 513 SC, held as follows:-
''31.This Court in the above cited decisions has, in no
uncertain terms, divided the scope of enquiry by the
Labour Court/Tribunal while exercising jurisdiction.
Under Section 33[2][b] in two phases. Firstly, the
Labour Court/Tribunal will consider as to whether or
not a prima facie case for discharge or dismissal is
made out on the basis of the domestic enquiry if such
enquiry does not suffer from any defect, namely, it has
not been held in violation of principles of natural
justice and the conclusion arrived at by the employer is
bona fide or that there was no unfair labour practice
or victimization of the workman. This entire exercise
has to be undertaken by the Labour Court/Tribunal on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
examination of the record of enquiry and nothing more.
In the event where no defect is detected, the approval
must follow. The second stage comes when the Labour
Court/Tribunal finds that the domestic enquiry suffers
from one or the other legal ailment. In that case, the
Labour Court/Tribunal shall permit the parties to
adduce their respective evidence and on appraisal
thereof the Labour Court/Tribunal shall conclude its
enquiry whether the discharge or any other punishment
including dismissal was justified. That is the precise
ratio-decidendi of the decisions of this Court in
[i]Punjab National Bank, [ii]Mysore Steel Works Pvt.
Ltd. and [iii]Lalla Ram's cases [supra].''
(8)The Industrial Tribunal has conceived its own procedure of clubbing all
issues and therefore the procedure adopted by the Industrial Tribunal is
patently violative of the aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court. This Court
is hence, of the view that the approval order suffers from procedural
infirmities and therefore, liable to be set aside. This Court could very
well remand the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh consideration.
However, this Court desists from adopting the said course since this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
Court finds no merit on facts also.
(9)The facts leading to the issuance of the Charge Memo / Show Cause
Notice dated 03.07.2015, are that, on 29.06.2015, during supper time of
the night shift from 2.00 a.m., to 2.30 a.m., the petitioner complained that
the idlis were too sour and prevented the workers who were eating in the
Canteen from eating it. The petitioner further instigated the co-workers
to squat before the Canteen premises in protest. At around 3.40 a.m., the
respondent/Management provided rawa upma, the cost of which was
borne by the respondent/Management. According to the
respondent/Management the said conduct of the petitioner amounted to a
misconduct punishable under Sections 16[1] and 16[5] of the Tamil Nadu
Industrial Establishments Model Standing Orders and therefore, the
petitioner was given four days time to submit his reply/explanation to the
aforesaid Charge Memo/Show Cause Notice.
(10)The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Charge
Memo dated 03.07.2015, issued for the aforesaid incident, was bereft of
particulars. The relevant portion of the Charge Memo reads as follows:-
''mnj ngh d; W fle;j 29/06/2015 ,ut[ c& p g;l;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
m d; W k ;;’ admin Person jpU/utpf;Fk h h; czit
gup nr hjpj;Jtpl;L czt[[[[[ ed; w hf ,Ue;jjhy;’mij
bjhHp u y s u ; f S f; F tH';f mD kjpj;J s ; s h h ;/ czt[,ilbts p
(02/00 to 2/30 am) Muk;g pj;jt[ld; bjhHp y h s h ;f s ; czt[
cz;z Muk;g pj;jdh;/ m g;n g h J e P h ; m d;iw a czth d ,l;yp
kpft[k; g[s p g; g h f c s; s J vd; W Tw p a[ s; s P h ; f s ;/ mj w; F
admin Person jpU/utpf;Fk h h;. ,e;j czit eh d;
ghp nr hjpj;Jtpl;nld; ed; w hf ,Ue;jjpd h y;jh d;
bjhHp y h s h ; f S f; F tH';fg;gl;lJ vd; W Twp a[ s; s h h ;/
Mdh y; e P h ; mij bgh Ul;g Lj;jhky; ,l;yp g[s p g; g hf c s; s J/
bjhHp y h s h ; f s ; ahU k; czt[cz;ztp y;iy vd; W bgh a; a h d
fhuzj;ij Tw p Vw;fd nt czt[ rhg;g pl;L bfhz; oU e ;j ep u e ;ju
bjhHp y h s h ; f s ;. Xg;g e;j bjhHp y h s h ;f s ;. kw; W k;
ga p w ;r p ( Apprentice Trainee) bjhHp y h s h ;f s ;
ngh d; wt h;fis czt[ cd;d ntz;lhk; vd; W jLj;J mth;fi s
nfz;O d;,y;,U e; J bt s p n a mD g; g p a[ s ; s P h ; f s ;/
nk Y k; m d; W gzp a p y ; ,Ue;j security gzp a h s h ;f s ;
kw; W k; xg;g e ;j bjhHp y h s h ;f s p y ; xU gph pt p d h; mnj
czitjhd; rhg;g pl;ldh;/ nk Y k; m J ed; w hf jhd; ,Ue;jJ
vd; W k; Tw p d h;/
ePh; czit cz;z kWj;jnjhL kl;Lky;y h k y;rf
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
bjhHp y h s h ; fi s a[k; czt[ cz;z ntz;lhk; vd; W
J}z;oa[ s; s P h ; f s ;/ ,jid bjhlh; e; J e P h ; m i dj; J
bjhHp y h s h ; fi s a[k; miHj;Jf;bfhz;L canteen-f;F
bt s p a p y ; c s ; s eilghijia Mf;fpu k pj; Jf;bfh z;L
cl;fhh; e;jpU e ; J s ; s P h ; f s ;/ kw; W k;f k; b g d p a p y ; jukhd
czt[ m s p j;j ,e;j njjpa p y; (29/06/2016) nk Y k; cw; gj;jp
ghjpf;fhk y; ,Ug;g J bgh Ul;L ,J Fw pj; J ep h;thfk;
bkd;n k Y k ; bgh p J g L j;jhk y; ,Uf;f. rhg;g p Ltj w; F kh w; W
czthf uth cg;g[kh Rkh h; 3/40 am kzp a s t p y;
bfhz;Ltu g; gl;L rhg;g plh k y;,U e;j bjhHp y h s h ;f S f; F
tH';fg;gl;lJ/ gp d;d h; Rk h h; 04/10 kzp a s t p y ;
bjhHp y h s h ; f s ;j';f s J gzp ,lj;jpw; F brd; w d h;/
vdnt e P h; ntz;L b k d ; n w bgh a; a h d jftiy Tw p a J
kl;Lky;yh k y;rf bjhHp y h s h ;fi s a[k; czt[cz;z ntz;lhk; vd; W
Tw p a[ s; s P h ; f s ;/ c';fs J ,e;j bray h y; c z; Q q tj w; F Vw; w
czt[ tPzh d J kl;Lky;y h k y; e p W t d j;jpd; mi kjp a h d NHYf; F
F e;jfk; tpistpj;J s ; s P h ; f s ;/ nk Y k; c';f s J
bray h y; k h w ; W c z t[ jahhpj;jjd; K:yk; ep h;thfj;jpw; F
TLjy; brytp d';fis Vw; g Lj;jp c s; s P h ; f s ;. ''
(11) A bare reading of the Charge Memo discloses that the Charge Memo is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
as vague as vagueness can be. The respondent has not named even a
single person who was instigated by the petitioner, in the Charge Memo.
Moreover, even though a statement was made that the Engineers, security
and contract employees who consumed the very same food, stated that the
food was good, the names of the employees are not mentioned in the
Charge Memo. In the Charge Memo, only a general statement is made
regarding petitioner's instigation and the persons who certified the good
quality of the food. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel,
when the petitioner is accused of instigating several workmen against the
respondent/Management, the respondent could have named few of the
workmen who were instigated by the petitioner. So also, when the
respondent stated that some of the workmen consumed food and declared
good, the said persons ought to have been named in the Charge Memo.
The Charge Memo is merely a general statement imputing allegations
against the petitioner. The vagueness of the charges has caused
substantial prejudice to the petitioner, as he was deprived of a fair and
reasonable opportunity to defend himself. In the absence of specific and
definite allegations, the petitioner could not effectively meet the case set
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
up against him.
(12)The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Surat Chandra
Chakrabarty Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1971 SC 752 :
1970 [3] sCC 548, observed that the charges must be precise and
unambiguous and that, failure to supply clear particulars, renders the
enquiry unsustainable. This Court finds that the Charge Memo does not
disclose particulars for the petitioner to meet the allegations. Therefore,
as rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the
enquiry proceedings initiated on the basis of the vague Charge Memo,
cannot be sustained.
(13)It is further to be noted that the complaint forming the substratum of the
charges, was not annexed to the Charge Memo, thereby depriving the
petitioner of an opportunity to effectively refute the allegations. MW1,
the author of the complaint dated 30.06.2015, in his cross examination
held on 27.11.2015, categorically accepted that the complaint was given
only on 30.06.2015 and that it was not annexed to the Charge Memo. It
was the specific contention of the petitioner that Exs.M4, M5 and M6
were submitted subsequent to the issuance of the Charge Memo and that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
they were created for the purpose of the case and hence, they were not
annexed with the Charge Memo. These aspects were not at all considered
by the Industrial Tribunal. The petitioner also contended that Exs.M3,
M4 and M5 were not produced by the respondent in enquiry and that
non-furnishing of the basic materials relied upon, strikes at the root of the
enquiry. The following judgments clearly spell out that non-furnishing of
documents deprives the employee an opportunity to defend himself and
further vitiates the enquiry, rendering it void.
(14)The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Mohd.
Sharif [Dead] through LRs reported in 1982 [2] SCC 376, held that the
delinquent employee is entitled to all the documents relied upon by the
employer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashinath Dikshita Vs. Union
of India reported in 1986 [3] SCC 229. held that non furnishing of the
relevant documents to the delinquent employee, strikes at the root of the
enquiry and results in grave prejudice rendering the entire proceedings
void.
(15)The aforesaid facts, as rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel,
demonstrate that the Enquiry Officer has merely accepted the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
respondent's version without any independent assessment of the evidence,
thereby exhibitng complete non-application of mind.
(16)The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National
Bank reported in 2009 [2] SCC 570, held that an Enquiry Officer acts
quasi-judicially and must independently analyze the evidence and cannot
mechanically adopt the employer's case. This Court finds that the findings
of the Enquiry Officer are passed mechanically and hence perverse.
Consequently, the approval granted under Section 33[2][b] of the Act, on
the basis of such defective findings, is illegal.
(17)The explanation of the learned counsel for the respondent that no
prejudice was caused to the petitioner since the Charge Memo is a replica
of the complaint, cannot be countenanced in the teeth of the allegation of
the petitioner that the complaint was obtained subsequent to the issuance
of the Charge Memo. The enquiry conducted against the petitioner
therefore stands vitiated not merely on procedural defects, but also for the
substantive denial of justice. When the foundation of enquiry is
unsustainable, any subsequent action including dismissal and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
consequential approval order under Section 33[2][b] of the Act, cannot
stand.
(18)Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned Approval Order
is defective based on the illegal enquiry, and is ex-facie illegal and liable
to be set aside.
(19)The writ petition is, accordingly allowed and the impugned Approval
Order dated 19.03.2020 made in Approval Petition in
AP.No.41/2016, granting approval to the dismissal order, is set aside.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
21.11.2025
AP
Index : yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
Unipress India Pvt Ltd.,
RNS-6, SIPCOT Industrial
Growth Centre, Oragadam
Vadakkuppattu [Post]
Sriperumbathur Taluk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
Kanchipuram District 603 204.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
N.MALA, J.,
AP
Order in
21.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
